Gay Republicans! Noooooooo!

[The Rabbi]

Steering clear of the marriage argument for now, my argument is that outlawing homosexual acts is an infringment of the liberties we are federally guaranteed and that the federal government should not allow Virginians to do so. Not that you are claiming anything else, but to reiterate, we are not a direct democracy and the states are not allowed the power to infringe upon the federally recognized rights of others no matter how popular doing so would be to the residents of said state.

I dont know there is a "right" to homosexual sex.  Nor do I see how a strict Constitutionalist could create such a right.

[The Rabbi]

What is your stake in it?

I got to live here.

As I've suggested elsewhere (in this thread actually), there is a perfectly legitimate way for the state to handle these using a partnership agreement formula.  Call it "domestic partnerships" and they are governmed by either agreement or a default contract, much like UCC.
The fact that this would not be acceptable to the homosexual lobby (and I would bet it wont be) tells me that their concerns have nothing to do with liberty, pursuit of happiness or rights.  Their concern is that their "lifestyle" should be legitimated.  That is unacceptable to the majority (and a big majority btw) of people in this state, probably in others as well.

[Guest]

I dont know there is a "right" to homosexual sex.  Nor do I see how a strict Constitutionalist could create such a right.

A strict constitutionalist would state that the constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights, but rather a list of rules that protect rights. The fact that homosexuality (or marriage in general) is not mentioned does not mean that it isnt a right, but rather that the government does not have the authority to regulate it. This means that it is a right that is specifically deligated to the states to regulate. Wether or not the states have the right to regulate it is a valid question. The constitution does protect the freedom of religion, and there is a long history of marriage being a religious institution. This would imply that the government should not have any involvement in it whatseover. Since religion itself isnt defined, one could very easily express that their personal belief system not only allows but require, the marriage of man to man or woman to woman and the government would not have the right to deny them this practice.

I got to live here.

Gay people getting married to each other makes this difficult for you?

As I've suggested elsewhere (in this thread actually), there is a perfectly legitimate way for the state to handle these using a partnership agreement formula.  Call it "domestic partnerships" and they are governmed by either agreement or a default contract, much like UCC.
The fact that this would not be acceptable to the homosexual lobby (and I would bet it wont be) tells me that their concerns have nothing to do with liberty, pursuit of happiness or rights.  Their concern is that their "lifestyle" should be legitimated.  That is unacceptable to the majority (and a big majority btw) of people in this state, probably in others as well.

The fact that this solution *is* acceptable to you says the exact same thing. The reason that your solution inacceptable to the "homosexual lobby" is the exact same reason that it is acceptable to you.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

...This would imply that the government should not have any involvement in it whatseover. Since religious itself isnt defined, one could very easily express that their personal belief system not only allows but require, the marriage of man to man or woman to woman and the government would not have the right to deny them this practice....

Government grants special privileges upon married couples, and imposes special requirements certain institutions and organizations when dealing with married couples vs single individuals.  Taxes, inheritance, insurance benefits, next of kin rights, child care, dependency, and so forth are all areas of public life in which existing law differentiates between who is and who isn't married. 

The argument that government has no place regulating marriages falls apart in the face of these areas of the law and of public life where marriage makes a difference.  So long as the government recognizes marriage, then society has an interest in defining what marriage is.  Else anyone can call himself/herself "married" (using some trumped up "church" to make it "official") and then use that status to leverage some sort of action out of another, based upon the legal special treatment of marriage.

The government has a very sound interest in defining what marriage is, for so long a time as marriage is something the law takes into account.  If you want to de-regulate marriage, you have to simultaneously reform a wide large of our existing laws and institutions.

[Joe Demko]

I got to live here.

How do homosexuals having relationships with each other and forming "civil unions" have anyting to do with that?  I've read through your contributions tothis thread and to the linked thread started by winston Smith and, frankly, you haven't had much to say other than that you think homosexuals are icky.

[Guest]

...This would imply that the government should not have any involvement in it whatseover. Since religious itself isnt defined, one could very easily express that their personal belief system not only allows but require, the marriage of man to man or woman to woman and the government would not have the right to deny them this practice....

Government grants special privileges upon married couples, and imposes special requirements certain institutions and organizations when dealing with married couples vs single individuals.  Taxes, inheritance, insurance benefits, next of kin rights, and so forth are all areas of public life in which existing law differentiates between who is and who isn't married. 

The argument that government has no place regulating marriages falls apart in the face of these areas of the law and of public life where marriage makes a difference. 

You are actually arguing that the government has the right to regulate marriage because the government does regulate marriage. By that argument all gun control is constitutional by the simple fact that the controlls were passed by the government.

Even if we were to assume that the existing priviledges confered onto married couples were legal that along does not give the government the right to place restrictions on marriage. For example, if the government passed a law granting a $1 per year stipend for gun owners for ammunition expenses, that would not give the government the right to decide who was allowed to become a gun owner. Just because the government has decided of their own accord to confer benefits onto married couples does not by itself give the government the right to decide who those couples are.

The day that people have to start passing laws to protect "society" is the day that that supposed society has ceased to become representative. Societies do not need protecting unless they are imposed and an imposed society is just a nice way of saying "tyranny".

[Perd Hapley]

Why is it that conservatives are actually voting in favor of government control over something that is so fundamentally personal and/or religious in nature? What is the governments stake in this? What is your stake in it?

Conservatives, in this case, are not voting to give government any additional control.  It is the other side that seeks to regulate homosexual relationships by including them in marriage laws.  The conservatives are simply asking that the laws not be expanded.  But marriage is not as private as you claim, nor so religious.  While marriage has its private elements, it is equally public.  It may not be important to you that Joe and Mary, or Jim and Steven, are having sex or writing each other sweet little love notes, but it may well be a public concern who's kids belong to whom and who inherits whose property, who is dependent on whom, etc.  If Jim and Steve wish to set up such affairs between themselves, let them do so, but why do they get special consideration?  Marriage is useful to us as a society.  Shacking up with a homosexual lover is not.  What is my stake in two men having sex with each other?  Not much.  That's why govt. shouldn't be involved in it. 

[Hugh Damright]

it is a right that is specifically deligated to the states to regulate. Wether or not the states have the right to regulate it is a valid question.

Is it a valid question? To ask if a State has a right to exercise its rights? What kind of right is it that there is no right to exercise? Maybe we're talking about whether a State has a moral right to exercise certain political rights ... but any way you cut it, it seems to me that it is not a valid question because it attempts to deny and disparage the States' rights.

"The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives." Ronald Reagan, Executive Order on Federalism

[Perd Hapley]

Why?  Why should "gay and unmarried couples" have the benefits of marriage without being married?

I don't believe there should ever be a legal benefit to having participated in a religious ceremony, but there is.  My argument is that people who don't want (or aren't allowed) to desecrate a religious ceremony for whatever reasons should still have a route to the legal benefits that are granted to those who wish to partake in it.

A wedding is a religious ceremony (usually), but a marriage is not.  No one gets legal benefits because of religious ceremonies.  "Unmarried couples" can have the benefits of marriage through a civil, non-religious wedding ceremony or through common-law marriage.  Or, they can just get married, can't they? 

Your argument assumes that homosexual relationships are equivalent to heterosexual ones

Yes it does, and you're pretty skilled at distilling an argument to the point of contention.  I believe a homosexual relationship is equivalent to a heterosexual relationship in all but the mechanics of child production (but not raising.)  You don't.  Neither of us will ever be able to persuade the other, but I do enjoy debating with you, because I get to see someone intelligently defend a position I disagree with.

Thanks for the kind words.  "Child production" and child-rearing are the reasons why almost all societies have included some form of marriage.  Marriage is how families are begun and continued.  Marriage is how children are raised to become healthy, well-adjusted, law-abiding individuals, without being exploited, neglected or abused in foster homes, orphanages, etc.  Marriage is how children are provided for.  Marriage is how women avoid being used for sex and left to raise children on their own. Though there have always been, and will always be, childless marriages, marriage in general does all these things.  It is the basis of the family.

Homosexual relationships, no matter how valuable they may be to some individuals, don't do these things. While it can be argued that the above are not sufficient reasons for govt. involvement, it cannot be argued that homosexual marriages would fit any of those reasons and therefore justify govt. involvement.   They are not a better way to produce children than other arrangements.  They are not a better way to raise children than other arrangements.  They are not a better way to provide for children.  If they are, it certainly remains to be demonstrated.  So why am I asked to lend govt. support to them?  Why am I asked to call them marriages when they don't look, walk or quack like marriages? 

I don't think there's anything obnoxious about my comparison of gay and interracial marriage&.You're trying to distance homosexuality from woman's rights and civil rights.  I can't say why, and I don't want to insult you by trying to recreate your position for myself.  I think gays should have all the rights women and blacks do.  You disagree.

Not at all.  Homosexuals should have every right that blacks and whites and men and women do.  We all have a right to enter our house of worship and have a wedding ceremony with anyone who will have us, or with a toaster or a building or a turtle or an abstract concept or the entire nation of Germany.  There is no right, however, for any group to appropriate the benefits or the legal category of marriage to a relationship that isn't a marriage.  While we can argue about whether government should recognize marriages that include multiple wives, 13-year-olds, cousins, Pakistanis, Blacks, etc., homosexual marriage is an obvious non sequitir.  Why? 

Why can't a bride be replaced by a second groom?  Why can't a "male" groom be replaced by a "masculine" lesbian?  Isn't gender a mere social construction that I should be free to choose?  No, it's not.  The reason why I'd prefer some distance between the issues of women's rights, Black rights, and homosexual rights is simply that there ought to be some distance.  Racial differences are not the same as sexual differences.  Sexual differences are not the same as differences in sexual behavior or orientation.  These issues have been conflated in recent decades, hence our confusion.  Lately, scientists and social commentators have begun to point out that there is no such thing as race.  There is no Black gene or Native-American gene.  What we call race is simply a collection of various physical features to which we assign a value.  While I wouldn't go so far as to say that race doesn't exist, it seems clear that racial differences are superficial and worth no more than the value placed on them.  For decades, the Western World has been trying to treat sexual differences in the same way.  It is only in the past decade that we have begun to acknowledge our failure in this.  No matter how much we attempt to deny reality, men and women are different sides of the same species, inescapably bound to one another.  So, we can exchange a Black groom for a White one, but it is bountifully clear that any attempt to exchange a male groom for a female groom is going to yield an entirely different sort of relationship.  So, if there is some reason to recognize homosexual marriage, let it be shown.  It will not do to recognize it on the merits of actual marriage, which it clearly is not.

[Guest]

Is it a valid question? To ask if a State has a right to exercise its rights? What kind of right is it that there is no right to exercise? Maybe we're talking about whether a State has a moral right to exercise certain political rights ... but any way you cut it, it seems to me that it is not a valid question because it attempts to deny and disparage the States' rights.

The right of a state to pass laws is limited by both their own state constitutions and by the federal constitution. For example, a state does not have the right to pass a law restricting the free practice of religion or speach. The question is wether or not marriage is an expression of the free practice of a persons religion.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You are actually arguing that the government has the right to regulate marriage because the government does regulate marriage. By that argument all gun control is constitutional by the simple fact that the controlls were passed by the government.

Even if we were to assume that the existing priviledges confered onto married couples were legal that along does not give the government the right to place restrictions on marriage. For example, if the government passed a law granting a $1 per year stipend for gun owners for ammunition expenses, that would not give the government the right to decide who was allowed to become a gun owner. Just because the government has decided of their own accord to confer benefits onto married couples does not by itself give the government the right to decide who those couples are.

You've got it backwards.  Society has already decided that marriage is a state issue.  It's a done deal.  The definition of marriage and it's relevance to public life goes back far into history.  It predates the constitution, and it predates English common law our civil laws are founded upon.  Marriage has always been a state issue, and it has always been one man married to woman*.  This is why the state has a stake in marriage, and why the civil laws surrounding marriage are constitutionally sound.  Prohibitions against gay marriage are just as well-founded and legal/constitutional as prohibitions against murder and theft.

To my knowledge, no state ever delegated the authority to the Federal government to change this.  Absent such authority, any attempts by the Fed to redefine marriage is inherently unconstitutional.

What the gay activists (and you as well, I infer) are asking us to do is to overrule our existing laws and practices, along with their centuries of legal and constitutional standing, to their own exclusive benefit.  They wish to leverage their status as "married" so that they can legally force society to grant them them considerations that society grants to all married couples  The civil institutions surrounding marriage were never intended to be used in such a fashion. 

For the Fed to force us all to recognize gay marriage would be a gross abuse of power.

* Plus various other requirements irrelevant to this discussion:  both spouses must not be married already, both must be adults, both must be unrelated, both must have the explicit intention of remaining married for their natural lives, and so on.  If any particular "marriage" fails to meet these requirements, then it isn't legally a marriage.

[The Rabbi]

I got to live here.

How do homosexuals having relationships with each other and forming "civil unions" have anyting to do with that?  I've read through your contributions tothis thread and to the linked thread started by winston Smith and, frankly, you haven't had much to say other than that you think homosexuals are icky.

If that is all you have gotten out of my posts then maybe you'd best not respond.

CYeager wrote:

You are actually arguing that the government has the right to regulate marriage because the government does regulate marriage. By that argument all gun control is constitutional by the simple fact that the controlls were passed by the government.

He completely missed the Headless One's point.  It has nothing to do with current practice (although I would also argue that recognizing marriage and kinship is a traditional function of government and thus a legitimate one).  It is an issue of property and personal rights and all societies have differentiated between married people and unmarried people.  They differentiate based on inheritance and otehr rights.  If homosexual unions are recognized and accorded the same status,why not any relationship at all?  If Fistful's job offers him full medical benefits then maybe he and I need to declare ourselves "in a relationship" so I can get free medical coverage.  And why stop at two people?  Maybe 3 or more.  Everyone on the board can get the benefit of Fistful's health insurance by being "married" to him (note to Fistful: get bigger bed).  It is absurd.

[Guest]

You've got it backwards.  Society has already decided that marriage is a state issue.  It's a done deal.  The definition of marriage and it's relevance to public life goes back far into history.  It predates the constitution, and it predates English common law our civil laws are founded upon.  Marriage has always been a state issue, and it has always been one man married to woman*.  This is why the state has a stake in marriage, and why the civil laws surrounding marriage are constitutionally sound.  Prohibitions against gay marriage are just as well-founded and legal/constitutional as prohibitions against murder and theft.

Actually marriage long predates the existance of the state, that alone implies that the state does not have a natural right to control it. Furthermore marriage has NOT always been one man married to one woman, the oldest forms of marriage were polygamous (sp?) in nature. Really the oldest forms of marriage predate the judeo-christian ideal of marriage and, homosexuality was a commonly accepted practice in many of these pre-christian cultures among those who were married, usually to multiple people. The whole one man one woman sexually exclusive marriage is a manufactured product of the Judeo Christian culture and as such is a religious excercise.

Reaching into non-christian tradition will not be doing your argument any favors as most of those traditions had definitions of marriage that would not benefit your conclusions.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If Fistful's job offers him full medical benefits then maybe he and I need to declare ourselves "in a relationship" so I can get free medical coverage.  And why stop at two people?  Maybe 3 or more.  Everyone on the board can get the benefit of Fistful's health insurance by being "married" to him (note to Fistful: get bigger bed).  It is absurd.

Outstanding!  I don't have health coverage, so I'm especially pleased to call myself one of fistful's new husbands.  Which plan are we on, and what are the policy numbers?  I'm overdue for a checkup.

I must respectfully insist that our marriage be one of those 1950's TV show marriages where each spouse has his or her own bed.

[Guest]

If Fistful's job offers him full medical benefits then maybe he and I need to declare ourselves "in a relationship" so I can get free medical coverage.  And why stop at two people?  Maybe 3 or more.  Everyone on the board can get the benefit of Fistful's health insurance by being "married" to him (note to Fistful: get bigger bed).  It is absurd.

Why shoudlnt fistful's employer have the right to deciding who they pay benefits for? Why should the government be involved in that business relationship between two private entities?

Heh, i guess if we decide that the government can choose the terms of a romantic relationship that they should be able to decide the terms of business relationships as well. Hello socialism.

[Joe Demko]

If that is all you have gotten out of my posts then maybe you'd best not respond.

Ithat is all I have gotten out of your posts, then maybe you'd best do a mre competent job of clarifying your position.  If it makes you feel better, assume I'm catastrophically retarded. I've read through your posts twice and that is still the overall impression I get.  Do, please, calrify it for my substandard intellect?

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You've got it backwards.  Society has already decided that marriage is a state issue.  It's a done deal.  The definition of marriage and it's relevance to public life goes back far into history.  It predates the constitution, and it predates English common law our civil laws are founded upon.  Marriage has always been a state issue, and it has always been one man married to woman*.  This is why the state has a stake in marriage, and why the civil laws surrounding marriage are constitutionally sound.  Prohibitions against gay marriage are just as well-founded and legal/constitutional as prohibitions against murder and theft.

Actually marriage long predates the existance of the state, that alone implies that the state does not have a natural right to control it.

You're exactly right on this point.  The state has no control over what marriage is and who can be married.  That determinant has already been made, and the government has no authority to alter it.  Now you simply need to reconcile your conclusion with your premise. 

If the government has no authority to control marriage, then how is it that you assert that the government has the authority to force the people to abandon their longstanding institution of marriage, then force the people to adopt a new institution of marriage against their will?

Furthermore marriage has NOT always been one man married to one woman, the oldest forms of marriage were polygamous (sp?) in nature. Really the oldest forms of marriage predate the judeo-christian ideal of marriage and, homosexuality was a commonly accepted practice in many of these pre-christian cultures among those who were married, usually to multiple people. The whole one man one woman sexually exclusive marriage is a manufactured product of the Judeo Christian culture and as such is a religious excercise.

Reaching into non-christian tradition will not be doing your argument any favors as most of those traditions had definitions of marriage that would not benefit your conclusions.

I'm not arguing that there are all sorts of interesting and diverse living arrangements documented throughout antiquity.  I do dispute your contention that these were marriages, as the term applies to this discussion.

[Guest]

If that is all you have gotten out of my posts then maybe you'd best not respond.

In fairness to Joe, thats about all I have gotten out of your posts as well. Maybe you'd best not post them untill you can come up with more.

The arguments on this issue here can pretty easily be distilled down to this:

Anti Gay Marriage: Gays are icky and it is bad for our society to allow them legitimacty.

Pro Gay Marriage: It isnt up to us what icky things are allowed to happen.

Noone is going to see eye to eye on this one as its a question of how people view the role of their government. I prefer a government that doesnt play any role at all in how people choose to live their lives, and i do not believe that it is even possible for a society to be damaged by behavior that doesnt have actual victims. This means that I dont care who people want to marry, what drugs they want to do, or what possessions they wish to have. Others view this role of government differently, which is perfectly fine because dissagreement is why our system of government works. Ultimately this gets decided by politicians, voters, or the pointy end of a sword, just like all things.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If Fistful's job offers him full medical benefits then maybe he and I need to declare ourselves "in a relationship" so I can get free medical coverage.  And why stop at two people?  Maybe 3 or more.  Everyone on the board can get the benefit of Fistful's health insurance by being "married" to him (note to Fistful: get bigger bed).  It is absurd.

Why shoudlnt fistful's employer have the right to deciding who they pay benefits for? Why should the government be involved in that business relationship between two private entities?

The government shouldn't be involved in that business arrangement, which is exactly the point I was trying to make to you earlier.  This is exactly why the gay activists should not be allowed to redefine marriage!!!

Under existing law, if I can find some church to marry me to fistful, and then convince some court to recognize our "marriage", then that employer would be contractually (and in some states, legally) obligated to provide for my own healthcare, even though that was never the intention of either the employer nor the employee at the time. 

Even if you accept the notion that the Fed has the power to redefine marriage in this fashion (which it doesn't) then you're still faced with the problem of forcing the people to reconcile their longstanding civil institutions which are built around the notion of marriage.  Forcing fistful's employer to renegotiate his way out of his (suddenly mutated) prior contracts isn't something the Fed should do.  And these sorts of employment contracts are the lease of the legal entanglements that would ensue.

[Guest]

If the government has no authority to control marriage, then how is it that you assert that the government has the authority to force the people to abandon their longstanding institution of marriage, then force the people to adopt a new institution of marriage against their will?

How does two men getting married force you to abandom YOUR longstanding institution of marriage? Your religion and your traditions are your business, and allowing others to live outside of those beliefs does not challenge your own beliefs.

I'm not arguing that there are all sorts of interesting and diverse living arrangements documented throughout antiquity.  I do dispute your contention that these were marriages, as the term applies to this discussion.

So why dont you tell me where and when your concept of marriage started as it applies to this discussion.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The arguments on this issue here can pretty easily be distilled down to this:

Anti Gay Marriage: Gays are icky and it is bad for our society to allow them legitimacty.

Pro Gay Marriage: It isnt up to us what icky things are allowed to happen.

  If you say so...

[Guest]

The arguments on this issue here can pretty easily be distilled down to this:

Anti Gay Marriage: Gays are icky and it is bad for our society to allow them legitimacty.

Pro Gay Marriage: It isnt up to us what icky things are allowed to happen.

  If you say so...

Can you quote for me where you or myself posted an argument that fell outside that statement?

[Hugh Damright]

If the government has no authority to control marriage, then how is it that you assert that the government has the authority to force the people to abandon their longstanding institution of marriage, then force the people to adopt a new institution of marriage against their will?

I was thinking the same thing ... how is it that government is supposed to be too weak to define marriage with the consent of the people, yet strong enough to define marriage to include homosexual marriage against the will of the people? But I think the answer is because this view in question is a yankee view and naturally it denies and disparages free government ...it tries to force foreign views on the States like a monarch ... how did Jefferson put it ...

"Should the whole body of New England continue in oppositition to these principles of government, either knowingly or through delusion, our government will be a very uneasy one. It can never be harmonious & solid, while so respectable a portion of its citizens support principles which go directly to a change of the federal Constitution, to sink the State governments, consolidate them into one, and to monarchize that."

[Perd Hapley]

I am not marrying any of you.  Though you're welcome to bribe me for that honor.  

The whole one man one woman sexually exclusive marriage is a manufactured product of the Judeo Christian culture and as such is a religious excercise.

That doesn't seem right to me.  Source?  This bickering about precedent gets us nowhere.  Homosexual relationships are not now and have not previously been considered marriage because they are not.  There are a whole range of marriages it would make a great deal more sense to allow before homosexual ones.  Marriages with close relations.  Marriages with multiple brides and grooms.  Marriages with small children.  Marriages with people who are already married to other people.  All of these fit the concept of marriage, roughly, even if they would not be a good idea.  Homosexual couplings don't even come close.  It is not a question of morality.  It is a question of facing reality.  

The arguments on this issue here can pretty easily be distilled down to this:

Anti Gay Marriage: Gays are icky and it is bad for our society to allow them legitimacty.

Pro Gay Marriage: It isnt up to us what icky things are allowed to happen.

And this can be distilled into you sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting, "I'm not listening!"  It could also be distilled into you giving up any defense of your irrational position.  

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The arguments on this issue here can pretty easily be distilled down to this:

Anti Gay Marriage: Gays are icky and it is bad for our society to allow them legitimacty.

Pro Gay Marriage: It isnt up to us what icky things are allowed to happen.

  If you say so...

Can you quote for me where you or myself posted an argument that fell outside that statement?

    It strikes me as a pointless exercise, but I know that if I don't you'll assume there aren't any.  So...



Howsabout the argument that it's illegal for the Fed to redefine marriage:

Prohibitions against gay marriage are just as well-founded and legal/constitutional as prohibitions against murder and theft.

To my knowledge, no state ever delegated the authority to the Federal government to change this.  Absent such authority, any attempts by the Fed to redefine marriage is inherently unconstitutional....

...For the Fed to force us all to recognize gay marriage would be a gross abuse of power.

You're exactly right on this point.  The state has no control over what marriage is and who can be married.  That determinant has already been made, and the government has no authority to alter it.  Now you simply need to reconcile your conclusion with your premise. 

If the government has no authority to control marriage, then how is it that you assert that the government has the authority to force the people to abandon their longstanding institution of marriage, then force the people to adopt a new institution of marriage against their will?

Or how about arguing the absurdity of your position of no rules on marriage:

Outstanding!  I don't have health coverage, so I'm especially pleased to call myself one of fistful's new husbands.  Which plan are we on, and what are the policy numbers?  I'm overdue for a checkup.

I must respectfully insist that our marriage be one of those 1950's TV show marriages where each spouse has his or her own bed.

Or maybe debunking the argument that homosexuals have no choice about their lifestyle, therefore it should be justification for social engineering:

...Does anyone really choose to desire sex (of any form)?

That's why it's utterly pointless for the gay advocates to blather on about how homosexuality isn't a choice.  That homosexuality is naturally occuring, even if true, is completely irrelevant.

I've heard that defense from pedophiles, too.  Maybe it's true, maybe the pedophile by his nature is unable to choose anything else.  But that doesn't change anything in related to the "rightness" or "wrongness" of pedophilia.

If "it's my nature" is an affirmative defense, then all manner of crimes could be justified.

Moving along to the argument that homosexual marriage is already perfectly legal, that all laws apply equally to gays as to straights, which refutes the notion that we need to alter our laws to make them "fair":

Here's another interesting thought:  The traditional rules do not discriminate against or exclude gays from marriage.  Gays are as free to marry as straights, under the exact same rules and restrictions.  Any man, gay or straight, is free to marry a woman.  Any woman, gay or straight, is free to marry a man.

Hmm...  It looks like a cursory skimming of the thread turned up at least 5 posts that offer arguments that don't fit your statement.  And that's interpreting "bad for society" liberally.  A detailed reading of the entire thread, or a more narrow interpretation of your vacuous "bad for society" phrase might turn up a few more.  But that sounds too much like work, so I'll pass.

And I didn't even bother to reread your comments.  You appear to be stipulating that the entirety of your position is "It isn't up to us what icky things are allowed to happen."  Who am I to disagree with your own interpretation of your remarks?